Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> Great. We agree.
> In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC
> 1725 yet still call it RFC 1725?
Why is this a relevant question? You can't hack RFC 1725 if you rename it
or not.
If you could modify RFCs as long as you rename them, I expect a lot of DDs
would consider them to be DFSG-free under the same clause that's used for
TeX, as much as that clause isn't our favorite thing in the world. But
you can't, so what's the point in discussing the hypothetical?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>